Why would the Tribe brass have fans design a pirate logo? That's just silly and doesn't tie in with the club whatsoever. Sheesh

Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB

googleeph2 wrote:When you bring it to the level of stereotyping someone while assuming you know them, you might get away with it once. I dropped it up above, but now you are repeating yourself. You made your point without the personal attacks.

What did you drop? You still are stereotyping anyone who objects to the logo as just concerned with thinking well of themselves.

And it's no personal attack to point out that white males living a comfortable suburban lifestyle have priorities ahead of racism, and don't want to have to think about it. That should be followed by "no shit".

If anything is a personal attack, its the bullshit about "many who say the right things often are caught up or exposed for doing the wrong things" being thrown into this conversation. That is not a response to any argument I've made - that Chief Wahoo should follow Little Black Sambo into nonexistence - and is setting the table for ad hominem attacks.

7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

danwismar wrote:7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

I'm not holding you accountable for anything anyone else said. We all know who said what, I'm demonstrating what making it personal actually looks like.

And it sure as shit is a personal attack to respond with that statement in your third paragraph. That is no response to an actual argument, but an intent on attacking the character of the speaker instead. It is intentionally vague by using words like "sometimes" so that the writer can sneak around actually being tied down to an accusation, he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady (but don't hold me to that if the other guy isn't actually shady).

aclayman wrote:Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

danwismar wrote:7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

I'm not holding you accountable for anything anyone else said. We all know who said what, I'm demonstrating what making it personal actually looks like.

And it sure as shit is a personal attack to respond with that statement in your third paragraph. That is no response to an actual argument, but an intent on attacking the character of the speaker instead. It is intentionally vague by using words like "sometimes" so that the writer can sneak around actually being tied down to an accusation, he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady (but don't hold me to that if the other guy isn't actually shady).

Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

aclayman wrote:Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

They could give the mascot a goofy smile, pastey complexion, redish hair and a knife.

I'm white, I won't be offended.

I actually own this shirt:

...and you know what? People tell me that it's f***Ing racist. We just live in a hypersensitive society. A girl 10 feet away from my wife (who is a redhead) got mad at me for saying the word "ginger" last year.

If you're not concerned with the racial sensitivity of your own race (even "comfortable white suburbinites") then someone is standing by to let you know that you should be.

No one gives a f*** about chief wahoo. Just change the stupid mascot and be done with it already.

I'd trade Wahoo to the Marlins for Giancarlo Stanton, even if it meant we had to take the rainbow fish mascot in return. It's a stupid argument.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

peeker643 wrote:Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

When I said:

he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady

peeker643 wrote:Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

When I said:

he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady